1966 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2004 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover (282 HP) has 74 more horse power than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. (208 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 327 kg more than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2004 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Cadillac Sixty | 2004 Land Rover Range Rover | |
Make | Cadillac | Land Rover |
Model | Sixty | Range Rover |
Year Released | 1966 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 7029 cc | 4392 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 208 HP | 282 HP |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 2115 kg | 2442 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5790 mm | 4960 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1930 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1870 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3390 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 82 L | 100 L |